Think about it, its strange. Considering her and Lisa were the most hated people in the last Strictly Series, she was constantly attacked. She was up against one of the most loved celeb dancers and former winner Jill Halfpenny and winner Tom Chambers.

Yet she totally dominated the tour winnig around half the shows and winning all show in Jill Halfpenny's native Newcastle.

Was it because people were feeling guilty that Tom won the show if they felt Rachel was the stronger dance and decided to giver her her due?

Was it because she was the best dancer of the tour?

Was it because more dance fans went to the tour and preferred to vote on the dancing rather than any other "qualities" that the other celebs had?

Why do you think Rachel did so well?

Maybe the rest of the Stepford Wives followed her round the tour.

Although .. it is hard to judge anything about the tour seeing as Julian Clary was a regular winner/runner-up as well ....

I don't think it's strange.

I think there are a combination of reasons (please don't think I'm stating facts, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone):

- Primarily I think it's because the tour is full of hardcore fans. The people who tuned in because the cute guy from Holby is on TV are out of the picture - and yes, people (including my mum *facepalm*) admitted they voted for him for that reason.

- Rachel and Vincent are probably easier to appreciate live and the attendees saw what the judges saw

- They are recent so in people's minds more than (e.g.) Jill

- Tom was underwhelming on tour because you don't get as many closeups of his wacky faces

- In hindsight many people probably realised Rachel should've won the series

- Maybe her fans voted more because they know she's the underdog (except on tour she's not the underdog)


As for Julian, have you been to the tour? His votes were well earned!! He was so funny, most of us were literally crying. Nobody thinks he's a great technical dancer but when we say comedy value, we mean COMEDY VALUE. John/Kate et al are vaguely amusing, but Julian was actually intentionally FUNNY.

I have no idea why she did.....lots of different reasons probably.....I am more mystified that Tom didnt get into the top two more than 3 times......here is a random thought that went through my mind when I was looking at video of the show today. Tom and Camilla were in such dull outfits !!! Ballroom.....Cherie in bright green, Jill in sparkling silver, Rachel in bright red, Lilia in pink with a huge bow, Flavia in a beautiful floral creation etc etc Camilla in a dull orange stripe with hardly any sparkles. Latin....most of the professional girls were in short numbers with their midriffs showing in bright colours, Cherie in her iconic black and white rumba dress, Rachel in her see through black.....Kenny in his kilt, Gethin in his see through shirt....Julian in his yellow with ruffled sleeves.......Tom and Cam in dark blue shirt and a dark blue high necked dress down to her knees.....they just didnt stand out and seemed to merge in the background.

I think I might enjoy this debate...back soon

I don't think it's strange... She was very popular and a very good dancer.

Garza, I wouldn't say she was the most "hated"? I know a lot of viewers said that she left them 'cold', but despite that she had lots of fans, including Vincent's.

I think 'hated' is rather a strong word to use, and I don't remember her being attacked especially during SCD other than on message boards. True, she didn't get as many votes as Tom did, but that doesn't mean that she was unpopular. Psychosis has analysed possible reasons pretty well, as well as reasons why fortunes seem to have been reversed on the live tour.

There were quite a lot of negative comments about her, and indeed most of the others, by rival fans on these and other boards, who must surely be a small minority of the general viewing public of the show and tour. (I do agree though, that the comments about Rachel by a few people were particularly vicious.)

Because she chose the moody and miserable dances that she does well.

Moody and miserable? Hardly. Atmospheric is perhaps a better word!

My theory is that Tom came across better on TV...Rachel better in live performance. Tom is a talented guy and very charismatic but Rachel and Vincent were just electric live.

You almost can't compare Rachel's success against Jill Halfpenny - Jill is an incredible dancer (and I am in absolute awe of her doing all that having given birth 9 months ago!) but it is a long while since she was on Strictly and so for the viewing public Rachel's Strictly experience will have been fresher in their minds. The same applies to a slightly lesser extent to Gethin (given that he was on the show just a year ago) but with the additional factor of him not dancing with his original Strictly partner. I think both Jill and Gethin did well to win as many Tour wins as they did.

To be fair yes Rachel did dance the dances she did best - but then again so did the others. I am far more of a Gethin fan than a Rachel fan but having seen them all on tour I would say Rachel is a worthy tour winner.

Personally I appreciated her dancing a lot more live than I did on the TV where she did indeed leve me cold,I could see what the judges raved about then. I didn't however vote for her because Gethin impressed me more. Just personal preference though

So, Rachel wins because the 'real dance fans' who went to the tour voted for her, but Julian won because the self same dace fans he was 'funny' .... does anybody else feel that these two points are contradictory?

Why? Can't real dance fans have a sense of humour? Out of Jill, Tom, Gethin, Rachel, people would be voting on how good their dances were... and obviously they picked Rachel as the best dancer for various reasons.

Julian is a league of his own. Can't real dance fans vote for someone who makes them laugh until they cry?

If they vote for him for THAT reason, then they're not real dance fans. REAL dance fans would vote based on the dance surely.

And if tehy're not real dance fans, then that negates the argument as to why Rachel won

I think a lot of people would be voting for the Vincent part of the partnership.He is very popular and people may feel that he missed out on winning the series because of Rachel's perceived 'lack of personality'

Just a theory
I also agree with the comments on Julian,he was absolutely hilarious and certainly made the show for us.

Only if you assume real dance fans don't have a sense of humour

I think there were three reasons that people voted for the people they did:
- Because they were great dancers (Tom, Gethin, Rachel, Jill)
- Because they were nationalistic (Kenny)
- Because they appreciate someone who can make them laugh until they cry

When I talk about "real dance fans" voting for Rachel, I mean over people like Tom. Tom doesn't have the same effect of Julian, in that he makes you laugh until you cry... he is the same as Rachel. He just dances.

Funny that last year Flavia and Matt did the best with Vincent and Louisa second and now Vincent and Rachel did the best with Flavia and Gethin second.

Just shows Vincent & Flavia are the bestt !

To be completely honest I dont care who won the most and who didnt win at all and why, I just want it NOT to be over I enjoyed the tour a whole lot more than series 6 and thats a fact.

I've got to agree with you Tyler Tango. Last years show Flavia was SCD 5 finalist and went on to win the tour with Vincent runner up on tour, and this year its been reversed with Vincent being runners up in the show, and going on to win the tour and Flavia runner up

Between the two of them, they have done really well the last couple of years.

I doubt many people probably realised Rachel should have won the series. Rachel clearly had more fans than Lisa but lacked the showmanship Tom possessed (as did Austin). That's why she didn't get the popular vote.

I would guess the reason she won so many nights of the tour is because there was less emphasis on the contestants' personalities - where Rachel rather came unstuck on SCD6 - and more on their dancing technique (which was never a problem for her).

And as for Rachel as the underdog? Pur-lease. She was the judges' chosen one from very early on. She may well have won over some people who went to see her on tour, but it's all rather immaterial as far as the TV show goes and does nothing to undermine Tom's victory with the general public.

Does the tour matter? No.
It just gives some fans of SCD the opportunity to see some of the performers live on stage as its so difficult to get tickets for the tv show.

Winning SCD on the telly is what counts as its watched by up to 9 million at any one time and the best dancer won.

I think it was because they were the best dancers by a mile.
xox

Why so defensive?

If Rachel lacked total showmanship and Tom had it, then that's all the more reason for Rachel to lose on tour even more than she lost on the show. One needs showmanship and personality in spades to stand out in such a massive arena, especially when Tom had such fast and exciting dances and Rachel didn't.

Rachel was the underdog from the moment she slipped into the bottom 2 in week 7. The judges' marks are irrelevant.

Also, I know quite a lot of people who changed their minds about who should've won on the tour. My own mother was one of them, but I talked to most people around me and they agreed that a) Tom was underwhelming (although I did enjoy him) and b) Rachel should've won. Even the ones who voted Tom. What I can't do is tell you exactly which proportion think that, but I suspect it's more than you think.

Me defensive? Isn't that you ...?!

If Rachel has now found a way of injecting more personality into her performances, great. For me and, judging by the comments on DS last year, many other people too, she focused so heavily on technical excellence that much (but not all) of her dancing felt quite clinical. Like it or not, Strictly is as much a personality contest as it is a dancing competition, and, as a character, Rachel did not engage the public in the way Tom and Austin or, previously, Alesha and Mark did.

On SCD6, the only moment I ever got a glimpse into who Rachel was came at the end of her showdance, where she made a fluff and giggled about it. And brilliant as her rumba and AT were, I never felt she was capable of the showmanship demonstrated by, say, Austin in his paso doble.

You may well know people who feel differently about the final outcome after seeing Rachel perform on the tour. Had I seen her, I might be one of them! But her victories mean little to the majority of SCD viewers, who don't go to the shows and form their opinions on what was on-screen last autumn.

And as far as justifying Rachel as the underdog because the judges' marks are irrelevant - LMAO! If only! If they were irrelevant, Lisa Snowdon would never have made the final - and Rachel would have had a struggle on her hands. The judges guaranteed their favourites places in the final thanks to the marking system and while I absolutely agree Rachel deserved to be there, let's not kid ourselves that she didn't have some help from her friends ...

Yeah, they would still have done just as well if they'd been dancing with James Martin, Letitia Dean, Jodie Kidd and Kenny Logan.

V&F are fantastic, and getting someone with potential doesn't automatically mean they'll do well which is where credit goes to them as professionals... but let's not forget that they both had celebs who could dance, ranking overall 4th, 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in their different series. They had celebs who were physically attractive, young and fit. They had celebrities who were from either the current series or the one before. Kind of shows that when it comes to the tour V&F are the luckiest, never mind the best!

(Not saying they're not the best, although they're not my personal favourites, but it's hardly a level playing field)